Is MIT losing it?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
41

<p>
[quote]
Invest[ment] in boondoggles such as Media Lab and cognitive science (minus a medical school) are, in my opinion, a huge mistake.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Media Lab started the $100 Laptop initiative. The Brain and Cog recently designed a computer model, mimicking neural processes in object recognition. Applications include surveillance, biomedical analysis, and AI.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In 1995 ph.d program ranking by NRC blah blah blah

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you're going to use rankings... you should use recent ones. 1995 is more than a decade ago.
,

[quote]
I think MIT also lost a lot of money on its expansion into Kendall Square. It bought property and started construction based on the pricings and prospects at the height of the Internet boom, then got stuck having to continue after the market tanked. Instead of developing a second Silicon Valley in Cambridge, a lot of unnecessary office space was created.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess that explains why a lot of Biotech companies are around Kendall. Creates a lot of potential for the Bio E program here too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When talking about technology inventions, it is Stanford that leads the way. Stanford has a long list of ledendary engineers who have made foundamental contributions in technology inventions and advancements.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You've already had this discussion with sakky [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=30761&page=6%5Dhere.%5B/url"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=30761&page=6]here.[/url&lt;/a&gt;] And you conceded.</p>

<p>Stop being ignorant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you know if that was the case for MIT graduate school too? I mean where does MIT get its graduate students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A large percentage is MIT undergrads.</p>

<p>Also, just a comment... My adviser, Raman Shankar, went to MIT for his bachelor's, Berkeley for his master's, and Stanford for his doctorate. I asked him about his experience at each school. He said Stanford doesn't have the unique intensity MIT has. And its students don't work as hard. But I guess he's biased too. Take his opinion for what you think it's worth.</p>

<p>And no, MIT is not losing it.</p>

42

<p>actually according to the patent office the school that churns out the most patents every years is neither Stanford or MIT. It is the entire UC system. Now, if you consider that this means 9 schools and not just one and disregard it, then MIT leads all universities in patents per year, and has done so for 5 years straight. So, I don't think MIT is losing it at all in that department.</p>

<p>And I know the guy who invented MATLAB, he lived on my floor here at MIT. He used to windsurf on the Charles.</p>

43

<p>Actually, Caltech beats MIT some years by a few patents.</p>

<p>2004-2005</a> prelim</p>

<p>2003-2004</a> prelim</p>

<p>2001-2002</a> prelim</p>

44

<p>Shouldn't those figures be adjusted for size? Anyone have the numbers per person?</p>

45

<p>Who is the guy that invented Matlab?</p>

46

<p>Well, since MIT is roughly 5 times bigger than Caltech (actually a little more) the fact that Caltech occasionally beats MIT in absolute numbers of patents -- unadjusted for size -- is a little surprising (but true).</p>

47

<p>Well Ben one has to note that CalTech is purely Engineering as MIT is lot more than just Engineering (Sloan etc)</p>

48

<p>eeeeek! Engineering & Applied Science is one division of 6 at Caltech, and not even the biggest division. Caltech is most surely not just engineering :)</p>

49

<p>

I believe MIT is the modal school for MIT graduate students. Certainly MIT is the modal graduate school destination for MIT undergrads, and I think the graduate programs are small enough that the reverse is probably true as well.</p>

<p>But WS17's point is a good one -- all of the top schools have faculty who have bounced back and forth between those schools their entire careers. The PI that I work for right now did his undergrad at MIT, grad school at Stanford, and is now a professor at Harvard. Who gets to claim him in a list like those in this thread?</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
The PI that I work for right now did his undergrad at MIT, grad school at Stanford, and is now a professor at Harvard. Who gets to claim him in a list like those in this thread?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everyone, obviously, if he is notable. That is the hilarious thing about these lists. Every place where he ever used the restroom claims him on its list as if they were the main and key factor in his success. So obviously Stanford is responsible for virtually every worthwhile innovation ever to have graced the earth.</p>

51

<p><a href="sakky%20wrote:">quote</a> Stanford has used affirmative action and other non-academic admissions crtieria just as aggressively

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The comment you're contesting compared MIT with Caltech, not Stanford.
Stanford's success has more to do with Silicon Valley (founded by its favorite disfavored son, William High-IQ Shockley) and its graduate programs than undergrad admissions per se. To the extent that Stanford invests in sports teams and ethnic balancing rather than SAT and GRE scores of its graduates, it does suffer, though the effect is masked by other successes such as Sun, HP, Google, and Yahoo.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Also, just a comment... My adviser, Raman Shankar, went to MIT for his bachelor's, Berkeley for his master's, and Stanford for his doctorate. I asked him about his experience at each school. He said Stanford doesn't have the unique intensity MIT has. And its students don't work as hard. But I guess he's biased too. Take his opinion for what you think it's worth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not agreeing with datalook by any means, but how could your advisor definitively compare the student bodies of Stanford and MIT when he went to one for bachelor's and the other for his doctorate (especially in terms of how hard the students work). They're way different experiences. I smell BS.</p>

53

<p>Maybe you should have googled him. That would be the first link. Don't jump to the "BS" conclusion so quickly before you actually bother looking things up. Why would I give his name otherwise? </p>

<p>Maybe he can compare because P.h.D students still interact with undergrads? I know my recitation instructor is a P.h.D student. Also, in general you have a feel for the school if you go there.</p>

<p>But like I said, take his opinion for what you think it is worth.</p>

54

<p>You're losing it. :cool:</p>

55

<p>MIT is still a strong #1 for oceanography. Does that count for this thread? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>pebbles- <a href="http://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/news_notes/clevescorner/dec04.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/news_notes/clevescorner/dec04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>

They'll be out by December. :)</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
Maybe you should have googled him. That would be the first link. Don't jump to the "BS" conclusion so quickly before you actually bother looking things up. Why would I give his name otherwise?</p>

<p>Maybe he can compare because P.h.D students still interact with undergrads? I know my recitation instructor is a P.h.D student. Also, in general you have a feel for the school if you go there.</p>

<p>But like I said, take his opinion for what you think it is worth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying you made him up. That wasn't what I was talking about. I just don't think he can comment on the student bodies accurately, given he went to MIT for undergrad and Stanford for doctorate.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Who is the guy that invented Matlab?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Cleve Mohler, who went to Caltech for undergrad and Stanford for graduate studies.</p>

58

<p>Scientist: Don't take the sarcasm personally, I'm always like this. Actually, I'm usually worse.</p>

<p>If you really want an answer to your original question, my response is "No, MIT is not a has been." Satisfied?</p>

<p>I'm not going to rattle off a list of every invention that's come out of this place in the last 30 years, because that involves way more time and effort than is remotely valuable. </p>

<p>But here- just today I took a tour of the lab I'll be working in this summer- the BioInstrumentation Lab. The PhD student who hired me is working on a device which would scan the genomes of thousands of people at a time in hopes of finding mutations responsible for common diseases. Other people in the lab are working on calorimetry projects that would streamline the drug design process, polymer fibers that contract when subjected to a potential difference (basically creating robot "muscles" that constitute both the control and the actuator) and needle-less drug delivery systems. Does any of that affect your daily life? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it's not meaningful.</p>

<p>If you really want to compile a list of every invention that has come out of either institution in the last 30 years and then declare the school with the longer list "better" and the other "a has-been," be my guest. But you don't need my help or a CC thread to do that.</p>

59

<p>LauraN,</p>

<p>To compile MIT's notable inventions in last 30 years might not be too easy, at least not as easy as to compile Stanford's, because MIT has done less in creating mile-stone level technologies that impact our daily life. That is one of the major reasons why route 128 can not compete against Silicon Valley in high tech.</p>

<p>It might be much easier to comile MIT's list in last 50 years instead (like what Sakky did before), because MIT was the leader before 1970. Since 1970, It is Stanford that leads the way in technology. This is a hard fact for MIT to swallow. But it is the fact. Sorry.</p>

60

<p>Hrteeexz, not agree with me on what? The facts?</p>